The harassment of U.S. Navy ships by Iranian boats in the Straits of Hormuz - through which nearly a fifth of the world's crude is shipped - was likely timed to occur just ahead of President George W. Bush's upcoming trip to the Middle East, analysts said.
Although no shots were fired, analysts argue the Saturday incident was designed to send a signal to the U.S. and the Middle East about Iran's strength in the Persian Gulf and to test U.S. resolve in the region. On his first major trip to the Middle East, Bush is planning to meet the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt and other regional nations starting Wednesday.
U.S. military officials said U.S. ships were on the verge of firing on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats when they turned away. Lt. John Gay, Fifth Fleet spokesman, said five fast boats had visible arms and "made very aggressive maneuvers towards our boats that indicated hostile intent," adding that the incident occurred after the three U.S. Navy vessels had passed through through the strait and while they were operating in international waters just outside of tanker lanes.
U.S. State Department spokesman Scott McCormack later said the U.S. "will confront Iranian behavior where it seeks to do harm either to us or to our friends and allies in the region."
The analysts said that, in the wake of the incident, more such acts are likely and that the risk of an military engagement that could temporarily halt crude flows is higher.
"The U.S. Navy is going to have to be prepared to deal with more of these," said Simon Henderson, Director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy. Last March, the Revolutionary Guard captured 15 U.K. sailors off the Iranian coast and held them for nearly two weeks.
Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said more such incidents are "highly likely as long as the Iranians are calculating that we will not slap them down."
"The IRGC is signaling to the Middle East and to the pragmatic faction in Tehran that their dog can not only bark, but bite," Cohen said.
"They're sending a message that they're the only ones that are standing up to the 'Great Satan' and are the real heroes of the Islamic Revolution," Cohen said. "But this is the dangerous stuff that wars are made of." `Testing The U.S.' Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Institute, said Ahmadinejad, who has close ties to and a long history with the IRGC, is trying to test the U.S. and its allies.
"Their real question is: What's happening in U.S. domestic politics with the National Intelligence Estimate and the presidential elections?" Berman said. "They're going to be constantly probing to check the resolve of the U.S. under a changed political landscape, because a lot of candidates on the campaign trail are talking about an exit from Iraq."
Late last year, a new National Intelligence Estimate - the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence services - backed away from the view that Iran was actively seeking to build a nuclear weapon, undercutting political hawks eyeing military strikes on Iran.
Berman said that, as the Hormuz incident is played out, it may reveal splits in Iran itself, with more liberal and pragmatic political factions calling for more conciliatory international relations, wanting to eliminate potential excuses for the U.S. to act decisively against Iran.
On March 14, Iran will hold parliamentary elections.
"But there are other people in Iran who are interested in precisely this type of confrontation, including Ahmadinejad and his coterie," Berman said. Ahmadinejad, who has called for the eradication of Israel, is pursuing more of an absolutist foreign policy, seeing Iran as the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations, he said.
Cohen called the brinkmanship "typical Middle East signaling, such as what Iran's proxy Hezbollah did, provoking an unnecessary war in Lebanon, and as Hamas did by kidnapping an Israeli soldier.
"In this game, one can miscalculate and trigger an avalanche," he said.
Although Cohen said the IRGC is less concerned about the logical consequences of the pseudo-attack on U.S. ships - closure of the flow of nearly 17 million barrels of crude a day - Berman said he doesn't believe the IRGC will push it to full-on confrontation.
"I've never thought it likely because, among other things, the Iranians are going to be among the most adversely affected," Berman said. "While there is no international consensus for regime change in Iran, if the Iranians look like they are a dishonest steward of international oil, that's the quickest way to make the Russians, the Chinese and the Europeans regime-changers."
But, Henderson said, "It is a card that they're prepared to play if the circumstances justify it."
Last June, Iran's religious head, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said, "If the Americans make a wrong move towards Iran," crude shipments "will definitely face danger, and Americans would not be able to protect oil supply in the region."
Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, Monday named Iran one of the greatest political risks to global markets. "In 2008, Iran is the single greatest problematic factor for regional stability in the Middle East and the principal macro issue for continued high global oil prices," he said in a client note